2014/2015 AB priorities

From W3C Wiki
Revision as of 16:43, 26 June 2014 by Coralie (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

At their June face-to-face meeting, the Advisory Board brainstormed and created a draft list of candidate priorities for 2014-2015, for the (new) AB to discuss and prioritise over the summer.

#  Identify work that is going on the wrong track or not destined for success. The AB could develop approaches for W3C to identify work that is not destined for success (for any of several possible reasons - competing alternatives, lack of adoption, not solving a real problem, missed the time window). Alternatively, the AB could analyse our portfolio and identify specific WGs that are not destined for success.
#  Improve agility unrelated to W3C Process. In many cases, WGs seem to overly burden themselves with requirements, slowing down work in ways that the process does not require. This could be, for example, by bureaucratically running the WG process - asking for greater consensus at intermediate stages than the process requires. How can we improve agility without changing the process? How do we manage the necessary bureaucracy to the rare defined places where it is needed? How do we train Chairs on this?
#  Work-mode (related to above project). What are Best Practices of WG work-mode that enhance agility?
#  W3C Process Revision 2015. In the AB meeting we discussed an approach to produce the next revision of the Process in time for approval at the May 2015 AC meeting. This needs to be re-evaluated due to delays introduced by the Formal Objection to the 2014 process revision.
#  Supergroups. Continuation of last year's project. Two main focus areas. (1) Getting the "easy" changes incorporated into W3C Process 2015 (see project 4). (2) Determining which harder changes are worth doing and convening the stakeholders to work on them.
#  Trademark Policy and Licensing. Continuation of last year's project. First focus is to understand whether the industry would align with utilising the "W3C HTML5" terminology to determine whether trademarking would be helpful or embarrassing due to apathy.
#   Open AB. Continuation of last year's project. Focus on ac-forum/process CG discussions of ways to further open the AB.
#  AC Meeting prep. Continuation of last year's project.
#  How does the AB better represent the AC? In the threads related to the structure of the AB, a question arose whether the AC even needs an AB - perhaps the AC can represent itself in dialog with the Team. A common response - that the AB can be a cohesive and representative team of a larger AC - caused the AB to ask what mechanisms it has available to ensure that it is truly representing the broad interests of the AC.
#  Consortium Priorities/Maximise Resources. How - at a time of limited resources and greater demands - should W3C maximise the impact of its resources. What are the most important priorities for the consortium.
#  What are the most important priorities for the Web. Be forward looking about future priorities for the Web and map it back to current focus of W3C. This relates to project 10.
#  What are the most important priorities for the Web and W3C. This is similar to project 11, but focuses more narrowly on the priorities as it relates to W3C as an organisation, or how it relates to our current Membership.
#   Meetings and Workshops work mode using 1) web tools (e.g. WebEx, Moderator, Etherpad) and 2) the Process and a culture for following it - e.g. providing adequate notice for people to attend events. This continues and expands the dialog we started last year. It relates to project 2, but is more narrowly focused.
#  Can we clearly articulate the role of the AB. We have the impression that the AC does not understand the role of the AB, so that raises the question how to better articulate it.
#   Improve the quality of information that the W3C team has about the goals and priorities of W3C Members from elections.
#   Broader industry collaboration on the Open Web Platform. W3C is a consortium that focuses on technical standards for the Web, but naturally comprehends weaknesses that the OWP has. Some of these weaknesses (e.g. developer tools) are beyond the scope of W3C. Can the AB propose means for industry to collaborate (with or without W3C) to address these weaknesses.
#   New stakeholders at W3C. The OWP is increasingly being adopted by vertical industries, but W3C as a small organisation does not have the connectivity to find key people in those industries to join W3C. Can the consortium, with the leadership of the AB, help introduce the value of W3C to these new stakeholders.
#   Build Chairs community. Assign buddies (new/experienced chairs). Update the Guide. FAQ. Improve how we express gratitude. Mention them on Intro Day (speed dating).